I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The emoluments and allowances of the President are governed by the Presidential Establishment Act of 1938, Section 1 (1) of which provides for the payment to the President of emoluments and allowances at the rate of £10,000 a year. Of this sum £5,000 is specified in the section as being the President's personal remuneration. The Bill before the House proposes that the emoluments and allowances of the President be raised to £11,500, his personal remuneration, however, being retained at £5,000. The increase proposed represents 30 per cent. on that portion of his income which is allocated to the expenditure of his office. The increase is obviously necessary on account of the increased cost since 1938 of maintaining staff and of any other necessary provisions connected with the Presidential office.
Supplementary Estimate, 1947-48. - Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.
In those few words, we have put before this Parliament a proposal that the salary of a gentleman who is already in receipt of £10,000 a year and is costing the taxpayers, for maintenance alone, £52,000 a year in the present financial year—£1,000 a week—should be increased by the sum of £1,500 per annum free of income-tax. That is the case made for it, when a Minister rambles in, tells us that there is an increased cost of living since 1938, and that on top of £10,000 salary and £42,000 maintenance we should vote out of the public purse another £1,500 a year, to be taken out of the pockets, not only of the rich but of the poor as well. That suggestion is an insult to Parliament, an insult to any democratic Assembly in the modern world; it is a cynical joke at the expense of the many practically destitute people who have to live on incomes of 11/-, 10/- and 9/- a week.
We heard reference within the last half hour to the spread of Communism and the danger of Communism. What is the breeding ground of Communism, what are the essentials in order that the seed of Communism should germinate? Discontent, disappointment and disillusionment with regard to the structure of the State and the Parliament of the State; unreasonable, inhuman comparisons between the worldly position of the few and that of the many; the wide extremes between immense undreamt-of wealth and dire destitution. We underline in this Bill the wide gap that separates the conditions of hundreds of thousands of our people and the conditions under which a privileged, luxurious few exist.
I wonder how many individuals in this State are in receipt of an income of £11,500 a year and have, from outside sources, not from within their own pockets and not out of their own bank account, an income to maintain an establishment costing £42,000 a year over and above that £10,000. If there are any of those individuals, tiny in number, unique in their luxurious surroundings, blessed to a unique and exceptional degree with the world's material wealth, surrounded by every form of luxury, every form of assistance, everything that could be dreamt of in association with money, how would we think if any one of them were such that, by any machinery or any device, they suggested extracting from the people of this country, poor and rich alike, a further £1,500 a year, free of income-tax?
What is the case made? Is the sum of £52,000 per annum insufficient to keep that old gentleman, not only in reasonable comfort but in undreamt-of luxury? Is that sum inadequate? Have our notions become so grandiose that £1,000 a week is insufficient, in face of the economic blizzard that exists, to keep one old gentleman in reasonable comfort and luxury? Is there danger of destitution, that we must bring in this particular Bill?
We voted out of the taxpayer's pocket, just a couple of months ago, money to provide for the upkeep of this particular officer of the State and his household. We provide a salary of £10,000 a year, £5,000 of that being exempt from the laws that apply to the ordinary man who is earning money—that £5,000 being free of income-tax. We provide £32,000 to be spent on his establishment during the current year; we provide him with service, staff, officers, every form of assistance, clerical and otherwise, at an expense of £4,120 a year. In case he might be inconvenienced by the increased cost of commodities that another person on a much lower salary has had to buy, such as a motor car, we provide another £300 a year, on top of that £10,000, for renewal of his motor, and we provide him with travelling expenses. We provide for any expenses in the way of stationery, telephones, telegrams—we do not ask him even to buy a postage stamp.
Altogether, we voted a sum of £52,033. I wonder how many tens of thousands of people in this country are living on the odd £33, or less than that, leaving out the £52,000. Yet, in a democratic Parliament, in a State which claims to be Christian in its outlook and which functions under a Constitution of which every second phrase is a pious aspiration and in the teeth of an encyclical recently published which refers to the necessity for Christian distribution of wealth, we think it is reasonable that one man, already costing £52,033 per annum, should get another £1,500, and this within a month of a reluctant grant of a half-crown a week to tens of thousands of old age pensioners, the half-crown being gobbled back within three weeks by the increased cost of tobacco, of meat and of butter.
I do not think the Minister and his colleagues have their feet planted on the earth on which they used to have them planted. I do not think they are living in the same world as ordinary people. I ask the Minister are there as many as five people in the whole of this State who enjoy incomes of £10,000 per year, with free house, with rates and taxes free, with fuel and light free, with all kinds of servants and services free and with extra money for travelling expenses and incidentals. Are there five in the whole State? Have our notions with regard to conditions for this President gone completely crazy? Does the Minister think that, with a free vote of this House, he would get as many as 12 Deputies in the whole Assembly to support the suggestion contained in this Bill? Does he think, by any process of feeling the public pulse, he would get approval from the people out of whose pockets this money is to be taken?
It is a most outrageous suggestion. And where does it emanate from? Was there any case made that there is a situation up there in the Phoenix Park that calls for an extra Vote? Where does the recommendation come from? The nearest thing to a recommendation on this point we have are the views of a very representative body of people— the Salaries Commission—got together to advise the Government and the Dáil on what would be a suitable scale of expenditure for this proposed new establishment of President. These people were taxpayers, representative of the business community, the professional classes, industrial organisations, farmers' unions and labour bodies. They approached their work with a high sense of responsibility, in the determination to do the right thing, and they approached it in the belief that no State should be let down by anything in the way of a niggardly grant to maintain any high office in the State.
They were aware of the fact that the Governor-General's establishment, which had been so much propagandised, so much decried by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance as an outrageous financial blister on the backs of the Irish people, had cost the Irish people £26,000 per year. They called all the evidence they could and their recommendation, their suggestion, was that whatever type of establishment would be maintained by the President, it should not exceed £15,000 per year all in, and that that should be subject to review after a number of years when we saw the expenses of the office and the type of establishment. The idea before their minds was that, in their desire to do the right thing, they were probably naming an excessively high figure.
Then, the Constitution laid it down that, during the term of office of the President, the salary or income could not be reduced. The headline was £15,000 per annum. During the period of President Hyde, that cost was not very much exceeded—it swung between £18,000 per annum and £22,000 per annum—but then we got a Fianna Fáil President and we got the Fianna Fáil monarchial notions, the grandiose outlook on expenditure and the contempt for taxpayers, and immediately the £22,000 per year jumped to £39,000, and to £52,000 this year. Now we are told that that is inadequate, that £1,500 must be added to that.
I wonder, when this matter was being considered by the Government, if any consideration was given to the fact that this is a tiny island, or portion of a tiny island, which has a very small and dwindling population in which the people are, in the main, financially poor, and in which the vast majority of families are living on incomes far less than £3 per week. Does the Minister think it reasonable, in view of that situation, to place the contrast before our people of the vast majority of families existing on less than £3 per week, a great many individuals existing on less than 12/- per week, and one man and his establishment unable to carry on on £1,000 per week and requiring another £1,500 to maintain that establishment? I wonder if power corrupts or drives mad.
I have here a publication issued by the Executive of the Fianna Fáil Party and sold for 2d.—a speech made in this Assembly by the man who is now Taoiseach, expressing the considered views of himself and his Party as to what would be reasonable expenditure by way of salaries in this country. Some of the views expressed in this 2d. speech of the Taoiseach are well worth just calling to the attention of the Dáil in general and, in particular, to the attention of his ardent disciples who sit behind him. It is a pretty fair headline. What does the Taoiseach tell us:
"We recognise that we are a comparatively small country, and that we cannot afford to carry on our administrative services here on the same scale as if, for instance, we were part of the British administrative system—the centre of an Empire. We, as I tried by example long ago to point out, had to make the sort of choice that might be open, for instance, to a servant in a big mansion. If the servant was displeased with the kicks of the young master and wanted to have his freedom he had to make up his mind whether or not he was going to have that freedom, and give up the luxuries of a certain kind which were available to him by being in that mansion. He had to give up the idea of having around him the cushions and all the rest that a servant in the mansion might have, and the various things that might come from the table of the lord. He had to forego these in order to get the liberty of living his life in his own way in simpler surroundings. If a man makes up his mind to go out into a cottage, he must remember that he cannot have in the cottage the luxuries around him which he had when he was bearing the kicks of the master. That is simple commonsense. If he goes into the cottage, he has to make up his mind to put up with the frugal fare of that cottage. As far as I am concerned, if I had that choice to make, I would make it quite willingly. I would say: `We are prepared to get out of that mansion, to live our lives in our own way, and to live in that frugal manner.' "
I wonder if that cottage in the Phoenix Park is without cushions. One could buy a lot of upholstery for £15,000 a year. For £52,000 a year one could buy, perhaps, all the cushions that are available or ever were available in this tiny island of ours. This is the frugal fare of a simple Irish cottage! This is the way we are living up to the doctrines preached when the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and his followers were bidding to secure the support and the confidence of the people in this country by a campaign of economy, by a campaign of denouncing bitterly extravagant expenditure—spending the taxpayer's money on super-luxuries for any individual or any particular office. This particular speech goes on to point out the absurdity of this tiny island, known as Ireland, contributing £20,000 to two heads of State—£10,000 a year to one head of State down here in the Twenty-Six Counties and another £10,000 to another head of State in Ulster. Deputy de Valera, as he then was, pointed out that there was £20,000 a year in salaries alone for two heads of State of this tiny island with a population of 4,000,000 people, and that in the United States of America, with a population of 117,000,000 people, the President, who did the work of an active Prime Minister, was only paid £15,000 a year.
The total sum at present payable is fixed by law. The Deputy is, therefore, criticising legislation. This Bill before us only asks for £1,500 extra.
Only £1,500 extra thanks be to God!
The other is law.
The law is that a sum of £52,000 has been voted in this House to maintain that old gentleman in this year. I have been reminded by the Chair that all the Minister is asking for is another £1,500.
The reason for the reminder is not to give a pointer to the Deputy but to remind him of the fact that what is fixed by legislation in this connection is not so open to criticism as the Deputy would imagine because it is laid down in the Constitution that the President's emoluments and allowances cannot be reduced during his term of office.
What is fixed by legislation, Sir, I submit, is open to recapitulation. If the Dáil is asked to consider that it is inadequate——
It is so laid down by the Constitution and, as the Deputy is aware, the Constitution cannot be amended except by an Act entitled an Act to amend the Constitution.
I never suggested that it be amended. My point is that the sum is more than adequate and that it is outrageous to look for £1,500 more. Undoubtedly that is in order and it is the most relevant line that could be taken. There was an onus on the Minister when he came in here to look for an extra £1,500 to demonstrate that the £52,000 which was already voted was inadequate to maintain that office in not only reasonable comfort but extravagant luxury. We must realise that comparisons and contrasts will be made which are absolutely indefensible and which nobody with any degree of courage or with any degree of conviction could possibly even attempt to stand over. Will the Minister, standing at a crossroads anywhere in the County Louth, meeting constituents of his there, with Kathleen O'Houlihan living up the mountainside existing on an old age pension—10/- a week which, the Minister says, the taxpayer can only afford to increase by 2/6 a week— justify the condition under which tens of thousands of Kathleen O'Houlihans have got to live when we have a Vote here to-night to give £1,500 a year extra to a person who is already costing the taxpayer £52,000 a year? The £52,000 is law. There is in recent years a kind of a Government conception that anything that is law is right, and that is distorted to read that anything you want to make right, well, then, make it law.
The theory of that may be quite sound, but in practice it can be most corrupt. You can make very evil things right by making them legal; you can make very damaging and disastrous things right by making them legal, if the only thing necessary to make them legal is for one man to decide: "I am going to make them legal," and if that one man has the unquestioning, dumb, disciplined support of a majority in a national Assembly. I believe that all this kind of thing that we are facing of late, this kind of lunatic expenditure, is the direct result and the immediate consequence of having an over-all majority following one man, a majority which is over-disciplined, over-obedient and over-regimented..
We are discussing the position of the President of this country. Would the Minister dare to leave this suggested increase of £1,500 to a free vote of a free Parliament? Would the Minister dare to take off the Whips and then submit this question to the House? That is the real test. We are sent here as representatives of the people. We are sent here to safeguard the public purse. If, through the instrumentality of an over-obedient majority, we start sharing out amongst ourselves the people's money that we are sent here to protect, we are no better than a gang of theives sharing the loot after the successful plunder. There is no morality, there is no decency, there is no honesty in the proposal before us.
Some years ago when we were passing the Constitution we heard a lot about the important functions that would be carried out by this particular office, the salary of which we are proposing to increase. We were told of the duties that would be taken off the Taoiseach and his Ministers of interviewing foreign visitors and all the rest. Within the last hour, we had the Taoiseach complaining of the amount of time he had to give to interviewing these foreign visitors, the way his time is being taken up more and more. As one Deputy, I do not know what the particular functions of this office are. I cannot see that they are so very onerous that they cannot be carried on adequately within the sum of £52,000 per year.
When there was a President, really and truly and fully representing all the people of the country, he was able to carry out the functions for half the figure that its costs to maintain the same establishment under a Fianna Fáil President. We have fallen into the groove now of making it a Party position, a reward for distinguished old gentlemen of the Party that happens to have a majority. There was a phrase used by Mr. Churchill: "Turn them out to grass." In view of this Bill, it would be more correct to say: "Turn them out to clover." £52,000 a year and we are asked to put an extra £1,500 on to it! Remember, there is a time when your very religion compels you to decide between the rules of discipline inside an organisation and your own promptings of conscience.
In view of the Votes that we have put through, the tiny little increments that we have given to people subsisting on 10/-, 12/-, 15/- or £1 per week, in view of the circumstances under which they have to live, does every individual Deputy who is supporting this measure believe firmly and conscientiously that he is doing the right thing, doing the just thing, and doing the national thing as prompted by his conscience, when he votes an extra £30 per week, free of income-tax, to this particular gentleman? Are Deputies prepared to justify that before every individual taxpayer, rich and poor, in their constituencies? On a question like this, a question of conscience, a question of fair play, a question of doling out moneys that you are sent here to safeguard, there is no alibi in saying: "Party rule; the Whips were on." You cannot get any alibi for going against your public conscience. You cannot get an alibi for trampling on all decent standards that should apply to representative men carrying great responsibility and elected to a position to safeguard the contribution of others by voting it out in this manner.
I think the Bill in itself is an outrage on any sense of public decency. I think the Minister's introduction of it was a gross Parliamentary scandal. If we had any people here who knew the world and how things were done elsewhere, if we had a gallery here of old age pensioners, if we had a distinguished strangers' gallery of hardworking labouring men earning from 50/- to £3 per week and they saw the Minister ramble in here to say that on top of the £52,000——
The Deputy should remember that appeals to any gallery here are not in order.
I am not appealing to any gallery. I am saying that if the gallery was populated by old age pensioners, and if the distinguished strangers' gallery was populated by hardworking labouring men with a weekly wage of from 50/- to £3, what would they think of the casual way in which the Minister rambled in and stated that, in addition to the £52,000 for the maintenance of this gentleman and his household, in view of the increased costs since 1938, we should give him another £1,500 per year. Does anybody think that the terms "scandal" and "indecent" are too strong to use vis-à-vis this particular Bill? I think that when the implications of this Bill are understood inside and outside this House it will be regarded as the most outrageous, the most reactionary, and the most rabidly callous piece of dishonesty that was ever perpetrated at the expense of a very poor and long-suffering population.
I resent the words used by the Minister in introducing the measure. He described it very shortly and very curtly as an increased emolument to meet the increased cost of living. I wonder what will the average reader of to-morrow's paper think when he sees that the President wants £1,500 extra to meet his increased cost of living? I think the proposal is degrading in that it reduces the office of President to a joke. I know what the average person in the country will say to-morrow when he reads that the Minister for Finance has decided that the President's cost of living has reached such proportions that he must introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £1,500 to meet it.
I would not like any member of the House to take up an attitude, in dealing with this proposal, that would in any way degrade or lower the very high office of President. In every democratic country you have a Chamber of Deputies or Representatives or Members of Parliament, or whatever you may call them. They propose certain legislation. Over them in most democratic countries you have a second or upper Chamber. Here we have the Seanad, in England they have the House of Lords, in France they have a Senate and they have a Senate also in the United States. That second or upper Chamber acts as a check on any injurious legislation that may emerge from the lower House. Should that not be enough, and should there be a chamber of representatives and an upper house both incapable of turning out proper legislation, there is a third or final check. In our case it is the President, in England it is the King and in France and America it is the President.
That is all very necessary because, from time to time, even in the best regulated Chambers, legislation emerges which does not meet with the approval of the majority of the people. We need checks or screens to make sure that nothing injurious will emerge finally into law. For that reason I would not like this debate to develop a trend that might degrade or lower the office of President by an iota. We have a President and courts to interpret the law and the day we have not these safeguards, then God help the ordinary people if they are to be left to the tender mercies of a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate, as was amply demonstrated recently.
The Vote for the President's Establishment this year is £52,033. Under sub-head D there is £300 for motor cars—replacement grant—and there is a note which says that no Vote provision was made for expenses in connection with the maintenance and running of the cars. I do not know who drives the cars, but I presume the President has two drivers. Between salaries and expenses and maintenance we can add another £1,000 to the £52,033. The Government must have their heads up in the clouds when they have the audacity—I think there is no other word that meets the situation— to ask for a further £1,500 for a President who has £5,000 as a personal salary and £5,000 for expenses in connection with his office. If we give him £1,500 more it will bring the total for his establishment in the coming year to well over £54,000. I wonder what will the worker, who is so handsomely treated by getting an increase of 1½d. an hour, say to this.
The last speaker talked about the old age pensioners. We can now see the pattern which began to take shape on 8th May when the Minister introduced the Budget and put an additional 3d. an ounce on tobacco. It means that the cigarette and pipe smokers down the country will be called on to meet the expenses connected with this establishment. Smokers must have realised by this time what the 3d. extra on each ounce of tobacco means. Now they know where the money is going. It is nothing short of scandalous, and in case the Minister turns up his nose at that word, I may tell him I will stand over it.
If this proposal goes through, we will have the President's establishment costing approximately £54,000. The strange thing about it is that two years ago, before the present occupant of the office was elected, the establishment cost £22,700. There is no adequate explanation given for the proposal to vote more than double that figure. The President is not the head of the State in a manner that we would like to see the President of this country being head of the State, because at most functions it is the Taoiseach who represents the State and that is altogether wrong. The President's expenses are not as high by any means as perhaps they might be if he fulfilled the duties of his office or was allowed to fulfil them properly.
The conduct of An Uachtarán in his office is not open to discussion.
I was inclined to think that if there was a reasonable case put up for this increase, such as an increase in the duties of his office, it might not be so objectionable, but no such case has been forthcoming. The President does not do a lot of entertaining and, besides, this particular figure is not for that purpose. He does not set, as one might say, a cultural headline, a thing that is much needed in this country.
Again, the exercise of his office by the President may not be discussed. I am sure the Deputy himself realises that.
I fully realise it and I will not pursue that line further. If the Minister for Finance were to do his duty, he would ask for a reduction in the Estimate. There was a sum of £10,000 fixed by law and if the Minister did his duty he would ask for a reduction instead of an increase. Recently there was a case where the President signed a Bill, but a few days later that Bill was declared by the President of the High Court to be repugnant to the Constitution. I am referring to the Sinn Féin Funds Bill.
Which is sub judice.
I am merely referring to the signing of the Bill by the President.
It should not be referred to now. The case is before the court at the moment.
I would ask your guidance in this. A reference to the President's signing the Bill could not in any way be construed as contempt of court, seeing that it is before the court——
Is that not a criticism of the President in his office?
Certainly.
That is not open to be canvassed here.
I do hold that a President who is capable of signing that Bill——
The Deputy will not pursue that line. The conduct of the President is not open to criticism here.
I hold that the Minister should have asked for a reduction rather than an increase in his salary, and I am giving my view as to why he should seek a reduction instead of an increase. I am not by any means anxious to go outside the scope of the debate and I do not want to question the ruling of the Chair by any means. I never did, but I do hold that the Minister is asking for £1,500 increase and the only excuse, because it is an excuse that he is giving, is the increased cost of living. I am pointing out to the Minister that the measure he should have introduced was a measure to reduce the existing salary of £10,000 because the man who signed that Bill is not fit or suitable——
The Deputy will resume his seat now.
Very good. I say this much——
The Deputy may not speak further. Deputy Morrissey.
Mr. Morrissey
Deputy O'Higgins in dealing with this Bill and in referring to the fact that we are being asked for an addition to the sum of £52,000, said it was inevitable that comparisons would be made. Fifty thousand pounds, £1,000 a week, plus about £30 a week if this Bill becomes law. I want to ask the question: can this country afford it? I want to put that question to the Minister for Finance because the only excuse that was offered in this House by the Minister or by any of his colleagues as to why he could not give more than 2/6 a week to the aged and blind of this State was that the country could not afford it. He did not attempt to suggest that they were not entitled to it. It was that they could not afford it. We can afford to give a 30 per cent. increase to a citizen who is already in receipt, by way of salary and allowances, of £1,000 a week, but we can afford, according to the Minister for Finance, to give only 25 per cent. increase to the destitute and the blind.
Let me make a comparison for the Minister and the House. Let me give to the House a case that was brought under my notice yesterday, and I know the old pair concerned intimately. I know them, I think I may say, since I was born; the husband was wounded in the Boer War—that is a long time ago—and was awarded by the British Government at that time a pension of 15/- a week. At the time of the Boer War, 15/- had a very big purchasing power as compared with the present day. That pension was subsequently increased by the British Government, following the 1914-18 war, to meet the increase in the cost of living, to 24/- a week. A few years ago his wife reached the age of 70. There were just the two of them with nothing to live on except what he was getting from the British Government as a result of a wound received 47 or 48 years ago. Because of the fact that he was getting 24/- a week from the British Government, his wife could get only 4/- a week from the State here. That was bad enough.
Recently, very recently, the British Government increased that pension again from 24/- to 30/- a week and immediately, this Minister who asks the House to vote £30 a week to the occupant of a job who has £1,000 a week, this Minister or those acting under his authority, immediately proceeds to reduce the miserable old age pension of 4/- a week to 1/- a week. In other words, what the British Government were trying to put into that man's pocket in reward for services given 47 years ago, is taken out of his pocket by the Irish Minister. There is the contrast—1/- a week for this old woman. If the British were to adopt the same attitude to their pensioners as we adopt to ours, the Minister, under the law as it exists in this country, would have to pay the full 10/-a week to this old woman. This man is not to benefit by the generosity of the British Government nor is his wife to benefit. This Government decides that 3/- a week is to be taken from her and her so-called pension must be reduced to a miserable 1/- a week so that we can afford to give £1,000, plus £30 a week, to another citizen. That is the comparison.
Is there any justice in that? Does anybody want to suggest to me for a moment that any member of this Chamber believes in what is now being done to that old man and woman? I do not believe there is a member of the House would stand for that, but that is being done. Her pension is being reduced to 1/- a week because we cannot afford to pay her any more. I want to ask members on all sides of the House, are they satisfied that we are doing equal justice to citizens of this country if we say that we cannot afford to give more than 25 per cent. of an increase—not over 1938 but over 1918—to the blind and to the aged, while we can give an increase of 30 per cent. under the Bill which we are now discussing? I do not want to go back on all the speeches and the statements that were made by the various members of the Government Party about the extravagance of their predecessors. I do not want to give any quotations from the posters plastered at every cross-roads or the speeches that were made at every cross-roads. I do not want to remind Deputies of the wild charges of gross extravagance which they made against their predecessors. I want to come down to the present. I am putting an actual case of a man and his wife, where the generosity of the British Government is being availed of by the Irish Government to rob an Irish citizen. That is putting it plainly and straightly. I can give the Minister or any member of the House the names and addresses of these people and the facts of this case. I do not propose to say any more than that.
The complacency and the indifference, not only to the feelings but to the rights of our own people which have been displayed by the Government in introducing this Bill have, I think, shocked public opinion. For years we had from the Government Party—long before they came into office—a campaign against high salaries and a determination to defame anybody enjoying a salary of over £1,000. Anybody who went to races was deemed to be a "seoinin" or a degraded, despicable citizen of the country.
To-day we find that £52,000 is not enough to maintain one citizen, even though he may be the first citizen of the State. We know that in the old days the Lords-Lieutenant were looked upon as men who lived in the highest state of luxury, who lived in the lap of luxury and who did themselves remarkably well, but in the present year's Estimate we have to provide £32,000 to improve the amenities of the Vice-regal Lodge, to provide more curtains, more cushions and more luxuries of every kind. Surely, in a democratic State one would imagine that the first citizen who had risen from amongst the plain people and who had been elected by them would have sufficient comforts and luxury when provided with those which were considered sufficient for the old Viceroys and who, I suppose, were for the most part born of the aristocracy. Apparently, the new aristocracy have higher ideas in regard to luxury and comfort.
There can be no reference of that nature to an tUachtarán.
I am not referring to any person. I am referring to the office.
And the office is, I suppose, occupied by a person.
We cannot, I suppose, very well separate the two.
Not very well.
I am not referring to any individual person. I am referring to the person who occupies, and will occupy, the office in the future. Comparisons have been made between the manner in which the occupant of this office is treated and the manner in which humble citizens of the State, such as old age pensioners, have been treated. I have a very intimate knowledge of the conditions which arose in my constituency during the last severe winter. It was so abnormally severe that many farmsteads were completely isolated for weeks, and even for months.
As a result, many farmers lost the greater portion of their stock. I made an appeal on their behalf for some little compensation to enable them to meet their losses, some direct grant to enable them to carry on their business. I was told that there was no money available, and that the only thing that the Government could do was to provide a loan which would have to be repaid and which I may say, could only be repaid with great difficulty by those who lost everything that they possessed. Why should that attitude, I ask, be adopted towards the ordinary farming community, towards the people who are struggling to live in our mountains and valleys?
I do not ask for a salary or a pension for them. I just asked for a little recoupment to enable them to recover from the disaster which had overtaken them and for which they could have no responsibility. The reply I got was that there was no money available. Yet, the Minister comes in to-day and in one or two sentences demands £1,500 per year for an office that is costing £52,000. I think it would take more than two or three sentences from the Minister to justify such a demand, and I think that before the debate ends he will have to exert himself and find some reason why this increased grant should be made. If, as he has contended, costs have risen, surely before we start raising the salary of the highest-paid citizen of the State we should first give attention to the lowest-paid. I suggest that if £52,000 is not sufficient there could be some administrative pruning which would enable the Office to be carried out under the amount already provided. I think the Minister has insulted the intelligence of the House and of the people by making this demand, and that if he has any confidence in the intelligence of his own Party he will leave this Bill to a free vote, take off the Whips and let every Deputy vote according to his conscience.
I rise for the purpose of joining with previous speakers in protesting, in the strongest possible terms, against legislation which, if passed, will mean a further addition on the taxpayers of the country. I agree with what Deputy Morrissey said a few moments ago when he asked if the country could last if such extravagance was to be continued. I look upon this legislation as an outrage. I think that it is something that should be condemned in the strongest possible terms by every Irishman and every member of the House. Everyone with a conscience who examines the circumstance of the people to-day, from the smallest taxpayer to the highest, is aware of the heavy burden that has been placed upon their shoulders through the mismanagement of the present Government—through the ever-increasing taxes that are going to make the rich richer and take from the poor so that they may become poorer.
Take the ordinary working-class people, the poorer sections of the community, the agricultural workers, the farmer who is producing with skill and industry from sunrise to nightfall, the old age pensioner who has retired and is living a miserable existence on the paltry sum of 12/6 a week, the home assistance recipient on a miserable allowance of 5/- per week, the poor unfortunate widow, deprived of the breadwinner, to provide for herself and her children, the poor unfortunate bog workers about whom I talked loudly in this House six months ago—the responsible authority decided that those men were to get an increase of 1d. per hour —the poor unfortunate teacher carrying out the all-important work of teaching our children religious knowledge and preparing them for the rough road through life—six or eight months ago protests were made against the Minister for Education for refusing to meet the just demands of the national teachers—when demands were made in the case of all those people the reply we got was that the country could not afford to bear additional taxation to give them more than they are getting, and that the very limit of taxation had been reached.
The section of the people that deserve attention and consideration and that should be put in a position to secure the necessaries of life are being forgotten by the Government that once maintained that £1,000 a year was an outrageous salary for any man. The Leader of the Government a few years ago, speaking publicly, said on many occasions: "A hair shirt for one, a hair shirt for all." To-day it is a silk shirt for some and no shirt for others. That is the position as we see it.
Deputy Cogan, leader of the National Agricultural Party, placed before the House the alarming circumstances of the small farming community as a result of the severe winter. They suffered losses of live stock from exposure. In my own constituency there are cases that would bring tears from the hardest member of the Government. Deputy Davin will bear me out when I say that there were cases in the parish of Wolfhill that would bring tears to one's eyes. Despite the fact that we have been told by the Minister for Finance that there is no financial accommodation for these poor people to assist them to rehabilitate themselves on their small holdings, despite the fact that nothing can be done for the other sections of the people that I have referred to, in the midst of all this poverty there is an alarming proposal to grant an increase of £30 per week to a man who already has £1,000 a week. Will the Minister give the House an indication as to what was responsible for the alarming and ever-increasing expenditure in Arus an Uachtarain since Dr. Hyde left it and since the new President took office? I understand from the official records that during the term of office of the last President the cost of running Arus an Uachtarain and meeting allowances and salary of the President was £22,000. When the establishment was run at that time for £22,000 it can be run for £22,000 now. Deputy Blowick said we must have a President and we must respect the President. How did the country exist without a President up to the time that Fianna Fáil introduced a President?
The Deputy is quite away from this measure.
I am trying to bring out the comparison.
The Deputy is advocating doing away with the office of the President. That is quite outside this measure. Regarding the expenses of the establishment, there was a Vote for the President's Establishment before this House a month ago or less.
I was only asking the Minister to inform the House as to the reasons for the alarming increase in the running of this establishment and the reason why the President of the State must get an increase of £30 a week. I hope the Minister will give us some reason for the alarming increase in view of the failure of the Minister for Education to give us a reason as to why the teachers should not get an increase and in view of the manner in which his colleague the Minister for Local Government dealt with the application by the county managers for paltry increases for bog workers and road workers. I submit that this is an Act of lunacy that should not be passed. It is a Bill that the people of the country are up in arms against. It is insane legislation. In no country in the world has extravagance risen to the degree that it has risen to here. Every honest-minded Deputy will go into the Division Lobby, in the event of a Division being challenged and, if he is voting in accordance with his conscience, will vote against an increase of £30 a week for the Head of this State. There is a certain amount of entertainment that must take place in accordance with the high office of the President, but I fail to understand why it has gone to such an enormously high level. I have been informed that the President gave instructions not too long ago that the finest and most elaborate curtains were to be removed from the windows of Árus an Uachtaráin.
The Deputy cannot discuss the conduct of the President in his office.
I was only pointing out——
The Deputy will not point out anything relating to the discharge of his duties by the President.
I was endeavouring to bring out the comparison and to show why this man should not get this alarming increase in view of the very poor circumstances that exist in the country. You will agree with me, Sir, and every Deputy will agree, that there are at this very moment old I.R.A. men who fought hard to put into office the men who are now sitting dumb on the opposite benches, ready to march after the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, to pile up the huge burden on the taxpayers in order to meet this waste and to continue these acts of squandermania, old I.R.A. men who at one time stood gallantly by the present Government, who are paupers in county homes to-day and a penny cannot be found to give them a proper existence or to enable them to take their place in the country.
I protest in very strong language against legislation being introduced which will increase the funds of the President in his office. Deputy Blowick pointed out the high honour and dignity attaching to the office of President. I think that, as far as dignity and high honour are concerned, they are not attached to the post at the present time. We had a President, at a cost of £22,000, who represented the people, who represented all the people, who was a unanimous and non-Party choice, but since that office has turned into an office to which a politician may be elected——
The Deputy is again on dangerous ground.
I think that should not be the case. I wish to join in the protest in view of the fact that this proposal is regarded in the country as being in very bad taste. If Deputies were to do other than to protest in very strong terms and to vote against it, I think they would be acting against their conscience. Further, in view of the fact that the President's wife——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
——holds a very high position——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
There has been a good deal of talk about extravagance here to-night but I think the direction in which most of the extravagance has gone this evening is in the line of talk. It is quite evident from the speech to which we have just listened and from the speeches that have gone before it that Deputies have spoken here to-night who have not even taken the trouble of reading the Book of Estimates or of reading the Vote for the President's Establishment. Deputy Flanagan wants us to view the office of President and the high honour attached to it from the point of view of the amount of money it costs and, because the amount voted in the last year of the previous occupant's term of office was £22,000, whereas this year it is £52,000, he wants us to accept that the present occupant is not as honourable as his predecessor. He wants to know from this side of the House how this extra money has been arrived at, how the increase from £22,000 to £52,000 has occurred. The Book of Estimates is there in the Library for Deputy Flanagan or anyone else to peruse and, if he had read the Estimates, he would have discovered for himself how that provision is made up. I propose to read out the different items in that Estimate, to show Deputy Flanagan and others how the amount is arrived at.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
Sir, on a point of order, is this going to be a rehash of the President's Vote?
There are many matters which will be common to both.
I wish to point out that the Ceann Comhairle prevented me from taking a line in certain matters when I was speaking and it might appear to Deputies that one line was being taken with some Deputies and a different line with others. That is my reason for the intervention.
I think the Chair has ruled that there can be no reference to the personal occupant of the Presidency.
Or to the President's Vote.
No.
Certainly.
Deputy Blowick and others — Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Cogan—all got an opportunity to refer to the President's Vote and referred to the round figure of £1,000 a week and the increase of £30 a week to the President, trying of course to mislead the House and the country that the President is getting £1,030 per week.
The taxpayers have to find it.
The first item is: Salaries, wages and allowances, £4,120; then travelling and incidental expenses, £100; telegrams and telephones, £280; motor cars—Replacement Grant, £300, making a total of £4,800. The other items in connection with the Presidential establishment are dealt with under different Votes. On Vote 10, Public Works and Buildings, this year it is proposed to spend, in connection with the President's establishment, £32,565.
Why not build him a new house?
I am the first speaker who has endeavoured to give any details of the expenditure.
We have them here before us.
Deputy Flanagan has not. I want to read them to those who do not know and will do so, despite the opposition. There is Rates on Government Property, £1,040 on Vote 17. Then Vote 21—Stationery and Printing, there is £90; on Posts and Telegraphs there is £30, and in the Estimate for Defence in connection with the President's Establishment there is £2,308. On the Central Fund, there are Emoluments and Allowances for the President and pension of the ex-President. We have here in this total of £52,000, the salary of the President. Some Deputies would like us to believe it was £1,030 a week, when there was included in the total a sum of £1,200——
Tell us about (a) and (b) at the foot of page 2.
I have already quoted those.
No, the Deputy steered very wide of them.
Mr. Brady
I have quoted (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Take (a) and (b) in italics at the foot of page 2.
I will do so in my own time.
Of course, you will, and side-step it, if you get a chance.
I am making my own speech, not Deputy Blowick's. When we take the £1,200 from the £11,200 we get the personal salary of the President, £5,000, and the expenses of the office, £5,000, making a total of £10,000. If the office of the President was run during the tenure of office of the previous President for £22,000 and if we take the amount that is being expended over and above the amount expended in that year, £32,565, under the Public Works and Buildings Vote, we get the actual expenses of the President's Establishment this year of £20,000. It was £2,000 less than that figure.
The figures that Deputy Blowick is interested in are the figures of the various officials attached to the President's Establishment. I do not know why he wants me to quote them. I intended to quote them, anyhow, but they are certainly not in support of his argument that the President himself is getting £1,030 a week. We have the salary of the secretary of the President, £1,000, with increment bringing is to £1,200; and a higher executive officer with an allowance of £430.
The Deputy might take all those together.
I would, but I have been asked to itemise them.
He is talking against time, on instructions, to allow the boys to get up from the country.
The Chair, and not Deputy Davin, must regulate the proceedings.
The total under this service is A, £4,120; B, £100; C, £280; and D, £300. There has been a good deal of extravagant talk, a good deal of insincerity and a good deal of propaganda about the speeches to which we have listened here to-night in connection with the proposal to give an increased entertainment allowance to the President up to £1,500. I must say that I have very little knowledge of what it costs in the way of entertainment to run the President's establishment, but this House in its wisdom in 1938 fixed a sum of £5,000 as a reasonable sum for entertainment expenses of that office. We have heard on other occasions about the various increases that have taken place since 1938, about the depreciation in the value of money, and so on, and it is only reasonable to assume that that £5,000 is, to say the least of it, not as valuable for the purpose for which it was intended in 1938 as it was then. If it was started as a reasonable sum in 1938, then an increase of £1,500 on that sum is not an extravagant allowance to-day.
If Deputies were honest with themselves and honest with the House and, above all, honest with the country, they would agree that, if they accepted that figure in 1938, we should have no hesitation in recommending that the entertainment expenses of that establishment be increased. We have Deputy Morrissey expecting us to weep over the pitiful picture he painted of the ex-Boer soldier and the allowance that the British Government were paying to him. I hold that that man should not be a charge on the State. If he suffered wounds in fighting the Boers, he should not be a charge on the Irish nation, but should be a charge on the British Government, and I do not see why any of us should weep tears over his plight when the British Government are evidently doing their utmost for him.
Was his wife in the service of the British Government?
Many a decent man was in the service of the British Government and his offspring are in this House. Deputies need not be so scornful of those who worked for the British Government.
Mr. Brady
Deputy Dillon should not always be so proud of some of his ancestors and be boasting of them here.
I am not ashamed of them as some of the Deputy's colleagues appear to be of their fathers. That is the difference between us.
Mr. Brady
I rose with the intention of trying to bring the facts of what the President's Vote, which is being misrepresented, covers, and the various items for which the money was being used. I think I have succeeded in doing that. We have had appeals from Deputies like Deputy Blowick that nothing should be said which would be a reflection on the office of the President, and Deputy Blowick then proceeded to cast all the reflections he possibly could on the President personally and on his office——
Not personally—the Deputy will withdraw that.
Mr. Brady
——until, eventually, he was asked to resume his seat.
I made no reflection on the person of the President and I ask that you, Sir, direct the Deputy to withdraw that suggestion.
Mr. Brady
If the Deputy says he did not, I withdraw it.
The Deputy accepts the explanation.
Mr. Brady
Deputy Blowick can draw whatever distinction he likes between the two. I appeal to Deputies to approach this question from the point of view of the amount of money involved and not from the point of view of some fictitious amount which they have imagined.
I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the office or the person occupying the honoured position of President of this State. The Minister, when very briefly introducing this Estimate, said, in effect, that the increase was being asked for in order to meet the increased cost of living. The President is in a specially privileged position in relation to the cost of living as compared with practically any other citizen, rich or poor, in the State. He is provided with a palatial establishment. Rates, taxes and costs of running that establishment are met, and he has at his disposal a very good garden where he can get vegetables for nothing, when the ordinary citizen, who is lucky enough to get a head of cabbage, has to pay 1/2 for it. He is provided with everything at the expense of the taxpayer, with the exception of his clothes, and is in a specially privileged position compared with almost any other citizen.
Apart altogether from that—I should like to hear that argument answered, if there is an answer to it—in regard to the increased cost of living, the President is being treated very differently from the way in which other citizens who have had to submit demands to their employers to meet the increased cost of living are treated. Generally speaking, the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to increased rates of remuneration given to ordinary citizens to meet the increased cost of living has been administered through the Labour Court, but that Labour Court, in almost all its decisions and particularly in the decisions applauded by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, gave increases to lower income group on the basis of a certain percentage. The employees of the Electricity Supply Board were quoted by the Minister as the line upon which the Labour Court was to model its recommendations, and, generally speaking, it has gone on that line—60 per cent. increase to the employees in the lower income groups, 55 per cent. to the next group, 50 per cent. to the next, 40 per cent. to the next and so on—but here we have an increase suggested for the President of the State, the best-paid person in the State, and the most privileged and honoured person in the State, of 30 per cent. compared with 25 per cent. to the old age pensioner. I ask the Minister to relate his action in this matter to the action of his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and of that court which administers labour policy in matters of this kind.
There is something radically wrong. There is no doubt that the President is in an extremely favoured position, and if money, as the Minister said quite recently, is available for every useful purpose, surely the purpose for which money should be voted, in the first instance, is for the raising of the standard of living, of the purchasing power of the 400,000 citizens of this State who have to live on 12/- or less per week. How many of these with 12/- or less per week are in a position to buy butter, bacon, eggs, and even a head of cabbage, at present prices? The President is in an entirely different position and, briefly, there is no man who will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill who will do so with the good-will of the majority of the people of his constituency. No sensible or honourable Deputy will vote for the Second Reading and no Fianna Fáil Deputy will do so, if there is a free vote of members of the House.
I find the necessity to intervene in discussions of this character unspeakably distasteful. The whole House appears to have overlooked the fact that we are not discussing an Estimate, that we are discussing an amending Bill, a Bill to amend the Presidential Establishment Act, 1938. I think all this talk about a comparison of the President's salary with that of a Boer war pensioner or old age pensioner is quite irrelevant and has no validity at all, because, if it is followed to its logical conclusion, the President of Ireland, when entertaining distinguished visitors, should give them a meat tea at six o'clock, a nourishing slice of cold corned beef, a cup of tea and a cut off the loaf. That, after all, would be the kind of evening meal that most of us eat and there would be nothing wonderful about it. But I do not think the President of Ireland should extend to the honoured guests of this nation the hospitality which may be acceptable to the more intimate members of our family circle. I think that, when distinguished visitors come to be guests of the President of Ireland, they should be offered the kind of hospitality that our distinguished citizens travelling abroad are in the habit of receiving, and I believe this Oireachtas should make available to the President of the State from time to time such money as may be necessary to maintain that modest stateliness which is proper in the household of the Head of the State—internal Head, remember.
I do not know what kind of entertainments go on in Arus an Uachtarain at present. I have not heard anyone describing himself as dazzled by the show put on and I am not altogether satisfied that anything has been said here which would justify this Oireachtas voting this substantial addition to that part of the Presidential income which is tax free. The Presidential income is divided into two parts. The £5,000 received as salary is subject to income-tax, the £5,000 received as entertainment allowance is tax free. The House will observe with interest that this £1,500 is being clapped on to that half of his income which is tax free. It, therefore, really represents a supplement to the real income of the President of a sum which more closely approximates to £5,000 or £6,000 than to the £1,500.
Now, Sir, I come to the extremely disagreeable duty which I have tried to persuade myself for the last week I might properly eschew. It is a matter about which I suppose I have prepared not less than six Parliamentary Questions and on each occasion when I came up to the fence of putting it down I tore the question up because I could not persuade myself that it was incumbent upon me to take the initiative in such a matter. However, when I find that the Government see fit, on their side, to bring up this matter and to put it up to each one of us tacitly to accept as becoming an arrangement, unless we expressly criticise it, I, for one, am not going to imply approval or give my tacit consent to the arrangement.
The Principal Act, which we are to-day concerned to amend relates entirely to the emoluments of the Presidential household during the President's tenure of office, during his period of retirement and, in the event of his pre-deceasing his wife, the pension payable to his widow up to the time of her re-marriage, if such should occur. We are, therefore, constrained to examine this whole question of emoluments with a view to determining whether we are making provision for the President and his consort adequate to ensure that in any foreseeable contingency they will be in a position of independence becoming to the high station to which they have been called. I think the provisions of the Principal Act, more especially if they are amended by the Bill now before us, provide amply, if not generously, for the occupants of the position of the President and consort of this country. I consider that the provision that we made was made, albeit not on the express understanding, certainly on the implicit understanding that neither the President nor his wife would engage in an office of profit or a profession of profit during their tenure of office or, indeed, while in receipt of emoluments by way of salary or pension for the work of the office of President imposed upon them. We are confronted presently in this country with the exceedingly embarrassing and distressing circumstances that the consort of the President has seen fit to continue to practise, by deputy, as a public analyst—a profession from which she derives a substantial income. The result is that the President's wife has become an annual topic of controversial discussion at the meetings of local authorities of the country.
The Deputy is entirely out of order on this Bill.
It appears to me, Sir, to be very relevant, in my respectful submission, to the provision made by this House under Section 4 of the Principal Act.
But no part of Section 4 is being interfered with.
On the contrary, Sir, Section 1 of the Principal Act is being expressly amended for the purpose of ensuring that the Presidential salary will be increased by the sum of £1,500 per annum which, combined with the provisions in the latter sections ensure that neither he nor his consort will during their tenure of office or thereafter experience such financial stringency as would require them to pursue a manner of life unbecoming to persons——
I am afraid the Deputy is outside the scope of this Bill.
I would respectfully submit, Sir, that we are making financial provision for the President and his consort on the foot of which I think we are entitled to expect that they will forego any other source of income involving their employment by anybody less exalted than the community itself. I respectfully submit that it is folly for this House to turn its back upon a matter which is becoming a growing and more recurrent subject of scandalous controversy down through the country. I am deliberately trying to choose my words so that the matter may be brought under review with dignity and decency with a view to having these recurring and uncontrolled arguments at meetings of local bodies and elsewhere throughout the country brought to a becoming end.
The Deputy is out of order.
Under Section 4 of the Principal Act——
The Deputy is dealing with activities outside the scope of the person connected——
I am dealing with the income of the President and his consort which it is our purpose to supplement by Section 2 of the Bill at present under consideration.
Nothing except the £5,000—the original basic remuneration of the President—and increasing it by £1,500 is in order.
Exactly. I am discussing with the House as to whether the circumstances of the occupants of the office justify this provision, unless the kind of undertaking which I imagine this House assumes itself to have received without any express declaration on the part of the other parties is now made available to us. It is legitimate to make the case that salaried persons, whose income could be described as static, in times of a rise in cost of living are entitled to be granted a supplement to that static income so as to ensure that their standard of living will not be materially altered by the rise in the general cost of living. But the reason why it has been repeatedly emphasised in this House that business people do not require that kind of consideration in times like this is that it has been argued that, in the ordinary nature of things, their income derived from a commercial enterprise tends to keep step with whatever rise there is in the cost of living.
Surely, if the occupant of the Office of President, whoever he may be, and his consort, whose incomes from the point of view of the Revenue Commissioners are treated as one, shall hereafter have the right during their tenure of office to engage in commercial transactions or the active practice of a profession, the emoluments from which, as a result of representations made on their behalf, rise in step with the cost of living, there can be no ground for saying that the income of this office is static and must therefore be adjusted by a supplement in the event of the cost of living rising.
Surely, when Oireachtas Éireann fixed the total income of the President at £10,000, no member of the Oireachtas contemplated that the President or his consort would engage during their period of office in a commercial enterprise or in the prosecution of a profession from which they receive reward from diverse citizens or from public funds. If that implicit undertaking has not been recognised because it was never more than implicit, has not the time come, if we are to treat the Presidential income as static and supplement it in times of rising prices, to add another provision to the Presidential Establishment Act which will provide that neither by deputy, per se nor per alios, shall the President or his consort engage in any office, profession or commercial enterprise during the term of their office.
That is not in the Principal Act either.
This is the Second Stage when I can suggest additions to the Bill before the House.
This is the Second Stage of a Bill amending an Act in a very specific and particular way.
If we are to add £1,500 to the Presidential salary, are we not entitled to say: "You are not to run any side-shows?"
The Deputy is criticising the actions of the President and the President's consort. There is no reference whatever in the Principal Act or in this amending Bill to the President's consort.
If I am to leave out the President's consort the less burdensome and disagreeable my task will be.
It is out of order and the Deputy ought to leave it.
Surely the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not impose himself on the House as a student of taste as well as the lord of order.
I impose myself upon the House as the regulator of the affairs of the House and the judge of order.
Under the rules of order, surely the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not maintain that Section 2 is not part of this Bill?
It is only proposed to amend sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, and it has nothing to do with Section 2.
Surely the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not challenge my right to suggest an addition to Section 2 of the Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Bill?
I certainly will under the proposals of this Bill.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not suggest, if I say that the House will be justified in giving £1,500 extra to the occupant of the Presidential office, provided that the occupant has not any other source of income, provided he is excluded by virtue of his occupancy of this office from enjoying any other income——
I shall make it easy for the Deputy and lay down this order, that any reference to the activities of the President's consort are altogether out of order under this Bill.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will agree with me that, if we provide £1,500 extra on the ground that the rise in the cost of living makes it impossible for the President to discharge the duties of his office unless a supplement is provided to bring his salary up to bear the same relation with the cost of living as it did before the rise took place, the Oireachtas is entitled to add that it takes this precaution on the assumption that the occupant of the office has no income from any other source; that the occupant of the office, if he had an income from another source when he entered it, divested himself of that income; that the occupant of that office shall not in the future move the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, under the powers of an Act passed some time ago, to make an Order permitting the President to continue in a profession of profit by deputy during his tenure of office, more especially if repeated and acrimonious discussion of this arrangement at the meetings of local authorities throughout the country suggest that the Order authorising the President to act by deputy, in fact, empowers him to appoint a salaried deputy, while drawing into his own revenue account all the fees payable in respect of the work done.
The Oireachtas would also, I imagine, stipulate that, in such circumstances, they will not be asked to close their eyes and refuse to see clamorous applications by the President's deputy to the local authorities that the fees payable to the President's deputy shall be increased consequent upon the rise in the cost of living. I cannot see that any useful purpose is ever served by our closing our eyes in this House to situations which we know the people down the country clearly see and eagerly canvass. The easy thing is to turn away from saying things of people with whom one has no quarrel and whose susceptibilities one has not the slightest desire to hurt; but the fact remains that those who send us here are entitled to expect of us all, when a duty, however disagreeable, awaits doing, that it will be done.
I suggest that either of two courses would be appropriate in the situation in which we find ourselves, which has been created by the initiative taken by the Government in introducing this Bill. Without any reference to the existing situation, without any animadversion on the present or past occupants of the Office of President, if, by this Bill, we are to establish the principle that the Presidential emoluments will from time to time be regulated by fluctuations in the cost of living, we should append to the principle enshrined in Section 2 an express proviso of the tacit undertaking which I understood we had, that whosoever undertook the responsibilities and the emoluments of the Office of President of this country would divest himself of every other occupation more completely and more irrevocably than any other public servant of the State.
All this might have been said crudely, and I am an old enough hand at confining myself strictly within the four corners of the most restricted rules of order to do so while saying things disagreeably and trenchantly, if I desire to do so. Distressing as this matter might become if anyone wants to make it that way, I believe it is in the best interests of all sections of our society that we should exert ourselves, on all sides of the House, to keep it on as detached a level as it is possible to do. I do not know why it always seems to happen to me. I do not believe I am any more contentious than any other man. I do not know why I should have to bell the cat. I know that in this case—and I want to reiterate it— I have felt constrained to put down Parliamentary Questions about this matter many times and, in fact, drafted them, only to tear them up.
I have taken this opportunity to put this matter clearly in issue without any acrimony and, I trust, without disrespect, not only to the person of a public servant but to the personal character of the parties concerned, for whom I have nothing but a warm regard, born of an acquaintance which, I think, could be dignified with the name of friendship, going back over many years. Sometimes doing what one believes to be one's duty involves one in the loss of things that one has esteemed precious, but that is all part of the day's work. Whatever the consequences of my intervention in this debate may be, I made it after the fullest deliberation. I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the office, its occupants, this House and our people's lives, that it should be settled definitely and in a dignified way now and for the future.
I am aware that an unsuitable word may quickly bring this whole matter down to a level that all of us would profoundly regret in retrospect. I cannot charge myself with having employed any such in the course of my observations. I exhort those who would seek to discredit me by moving the discussion to that lower level to forbear and reserve their exertions for some other occasion. There will be plenty of opportunities, if any Deputy is anxious to roll in the gutter, to try to make me join him on some other occasion. Individuals outside this House, for whose susceptibilities every Deputy here is equally solicitous, are here involved; therefore all matters touching them should be discussed with calm and with restraint. In that spirit I approached this matter.
I believe something should be done along the lines suggested by me and, unless something is done along those lines, I believe that the passage of this Bill will excite bitter resentment in many parts of the country. I believe that if this were made an occasion for clarifying the position of the occupant of the Presidential Office, our people would not be narrow-minded or covetous or grudging, if the issue was put honestly before them. As things stand, they have a deep and, in my judgment, a well-founded belief that this provision would improperly be made but, with the amendment making this the occasion of the President eschewing all other office or occupation of profit during his ten years of office or his period of retirement, I believe the people would accept the principle that these emoluments should fluctuate with the cost of living and that the obligation is required of him to provide for those whom it is his duty to entertain, something more elaborate than a meat tea.
Before the Minister concludes, I want to say just a few words on this Bill. We are presented here with a proposal from the Government to increase the President's allowances by £1,500 and we are asked to provide this increase for an establishment which already costs £52,000 a year. The House is being asked to do that as if it were the only outstanding economic problem before the country. Whatever grievance the President may have in regard to the increase in the cost of living to-day as compared with 1939, there are tens of thousands of other citizens who have a much bigger grievance and they can find nobody to offer a remedy for their grievances so quickly and expeditiously as is being done by the Government through the medium of this Bill. This is being done at a time when tens of thousands of citizens are scarcely able to get the barest necessaries of life, when they are not able to buy the food or clothing necessary for a reasonable sustenance. At a time when large numbers of people are compelled to do with much less than they had in pre-war days because of the rapid increase in the cost of living, we are arranging through the medium of this Bill to adjust the President's way of life by grafting £1,500 on to a sum of £10,000 in respect of salaries and allowances. I think that the Government seem to have taken leave of their senses to introduce a Bill of this kind in present circumstances.
This Bill, while making special provision for a citizen in enjoyment of a salary of £10,000 a year, a citizen who is in a much better position than tens of thousands of his fellow-citizens to weather the economic storm brought about by the war, is introduced in circumstances under which large numbers of our people are suffering grave economic hardship without any hope of redress. The Bill proposes to equate the President's cost of living in 1939 to the President's cost of living to-day by granting him an increase in salary and allowances of £1,500.
When we remember the miserable pittance of 2/6 given to old age pensioners, the weakest section of the community, to enable them to meet the increased cost of living, we get some idea of the sense of values that obtains in this House. At a time when thousands of unfortunate citizens are still subsisting on home assistance standards and when our social services are so grossly inadequate that large numbers of our people are living in real destitution, I think it is a mockery of the sufferings of these people that this House should be asked to vote £1,500 as additional emoluments to the President.
I think it is not many months ago since the Minister for Finance gave an advice to this House in the matter of expenditure. He told us on that occasion that one of the ways in which the cost of living could be kept down and inflation prevented was to refrain from spending money on the purchase of goods. The Minister's advice on that occasion to the people generally was to keep their money until a later period. "By doing that," he said, "you will probably get more goods and better value if you buy these goods and these services at a later date." Should that advice not be tendered to the President now? With an income of £10,000 per annum, a very substantial income in our circumstances, should not the President be advised, with the economic situation of the country as it is and with the example of large numbers of worthy citizens before him—citizens who are not able to make adequate provision for a decent standard of living—that it would be intolerable to contemplate a situation in which, whilst not making provision for really needy people, the Government would propose to make an additional £1,500 available for the salary and allowances of the President? I think the Government's approach to this whole matter has been the reverse of what commonsense demands in the present situation.
This country is not in a position in which it can look with tender care or delicious solicitude at the financial circumstances of persons in receipt of £10,000 per annum. They have got to take the rough with the smooth, the lean with the fat, in matters of this kind. They cannot expect the tender adjustments such as would be necessary in respect of persons in receipt of a lower remuneration or low wages even when they are lucky enough to have employment. Persons in the position of the President have got to take a chance in the way that things may turn out. They have got to remember that even though the cost of living goes up, involving additional inroads on their incomes, nevertheless, in comparison with millions of other citizens, the President is still in a position in which his problems are small, insignificant and trifling, compared with the problems confronting the masses of the people of the country.
As I say the Government has been unwise in its whole approach to this matter. I think what the Minister should have done was to go to the President when the President was seeking this increase—I do not know whether he sought it or not but that is immaterial anyhow—and give him the advice which he gave to the Dáil some time ago:—
"Do not buy now, do not spend now, if you can avoid spending; keep your money until later on."
It would not be too much to expect, having regard to the salary of the President and the whole cost of the Presidential establishment, that the President should be tendered the advice that if he could get over his difficulties by economies to the extent of 30 per cent. in his establishment, that would be equivalent to the increase which is now proposed to provide for him and that he would be at the same time responding to the Minister's advice to spend as little as possible because he might get better value for his money later on.
I dare say it is a bit late and a bit hopeless for anybody at this stage to question this proposal to provide £1,500 of an addition to the President's already substantial income. Nevertheless, I think it is the duty of Deputies to criticise and protest against this extravagant expenditure because we must examine this proposal from the point of view of the people to whom this money really belongs; the people who will have to meet this extra expenditure by increased taxation in one way or another. In the good old past of over 15 years ago when the present Government Party were in Opposition, they made great capital all over the country of the gigantic expenditure, as they called it, entailed by the upkeep of the Governor General's establishment. They gained support and votes by promises of all sorts of reductions if they were once put into power here, but it was an unfortunate day for the Irish people that some of us took them at their word. We gave them the steamroller to steam-roll through any proposal they wished in this House, a steamroller which will now enable them to provide the chief citizen of this State with an increase in a salary which is already more than the people of the country can afford.
The fact that the President's establishment costs this little island over £52,000 is something which should make the ordinary taxpayer open his eyes in wonderment. Having regard to our decline in population, and the stagnation in all forms of production, I think this is an entirely wrong time to set about giving an increase to our President. This money might be much more usefully expended in other directions. We are told, of course, that it is only a small sum, but we must remember that at the same time we had another Bill before us a short time ago providing for increases which we were told amounted to only £24,000 and before this week is out we shall have a still further Bill providing for increases of £30,000. All these thousands of pounds added together come to a very large sum in the end. I move the adjournment of the debate.